A CIVIL SABBATH by Alonzo Trévier Jones

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · May 12, 1890

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 16, No. 18.

"A CIVIL SABBATH."

By Alonzo Trévier Jones

THIS is what is demanded of the State by the "American Sabbath Union" and its friends; but a "civil" sabbath is as much a misnomer as a civil baptism or a civil Lord's Supper. The Sabbath is a religious institution solely, pointing out a duty which man owes to God. Man cannot keep the Sabbath for his fellow; he is to keep it holy unto God, and in honor of God, in commemorating God's work as Creator, therefore the One to whom man owes all the powers of his being. Not one of these men who are so loudly demanding a "civil sabbath" would pause for a moment at the mere idea of legal rest. It is the religious Sabbath for which they are working.

But what right has the government to take from anyone one day each week just as long as he does no injury to his neighbor in life, chastity, property, or reputation? These reformers, with good intentions no doubt, do not design to touch any man's conscience, yet they will compel him to observe an institution utterly repugnant to him, under the specious plea that the law is only a "civil" law! As well could it be claimed that the law of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3) was only a civil law, in harmony with the majority, for the good of the people, and necessary for the maintenance and stability of the government of Babylon. And Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego could have obeyed it as a civil ordinance, according to this same kind of logic, without compromising their faith! All that Nebuchadnezzar required was obedience to a civil statute. The Hebrews were not forbidden to worship their God. But the loyal

servants of Jehovah thought differently. They would not bow down to the great image even though certain death was before them; and God vindicated their course.

A legal sabbath involves, in a country where there are classes which disagree, a decision as to what day is the Sabbath. In so doing it discriminates against a religious class one side or the other. It involves, unless these classes will compromise on some other day of the week, the adoption of a religious institution held by more or less as sacred. It therefore places a religious dogma in the statute law, and therefore unites religion with the State. It elevates that portion of the Christian church which keeps Sunday, by establishing a religious tenet held by them, and it brings hardship upon those who disagree with them.

Thus it would be with seventh-day observers if Sunday was established by law; and thus it would be with first-day observers if the seventh-day Sabbath was legalized. The matter of numbers on either side has no bearing on the case. To legalize either sabbath would be the wickedest of legislation. In case Saturday was legalized, hardship and injustice would come to the first-day observer, not by virtue of his relation as a citizen, but solely because of his religion, which comes not in conflict with the rights of his fellow-citizens, but in conflict with their religious belief enforced by civil law. And this would be just as true under a Sunday law. No sophistry can evade this point. Sabbath legislation means religious legislation, religious tyranny, religious persecution. The great wonder to our mind is that Christians, professed followers of Him who said: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them," and, "My kingdom is not of this world," should seek to compel and persecute those who may believe otherwise or do not believe at all. Well did Christ say: "Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." John 16:2. May God help these Christians to be Christ-like. M. C. W.